Revocation Hearing

PURPOSE: An alleged supervised released violator is entitled to a revocation hearing by the parole board under statutory authorization and under the provisions of a United States Supreme Court decision, Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). (1) When the board chooses to pursue revocation of probation, parole, or conditional release, the alleged violator has the right to a revocation hearing before the authority that originally granted the probation, parole, or conditional release. The hearing will be held within a reasonable time frame after the alleged violator has been made available to the granting authority either by return to the Department of Corrections for appearance before the parole board or return to the jurisdiction of the court. (A) An alleged probation, parole, or conditional release violator will be contacted by an institutional or field probation or parole officer and given a “Request for or Waiver of Preliminary Hearing,” included herein, form to sign indicating whether s/he requests a revocation hearing or whether s/he waives a hearing. (B) Alleged probation violators will appear before the court and make their desires known at that time as to whether they want a revocation hearing. (C) The alleged violator may present his/her own testimony regarding the alleged violation, and may present any other documents or evidence of mitigating circumstances which may explain the violation. (D) The alleged violator may present his/her own witnesses who have relevant information concerning this violation. These witnesses are not just to be character witnesses. It will be the alleged violator’s responsibility to produce his/her own witnesses, and s/he will be given an opportunity to make contacts as may be necessary to assure the appearance of any witnesses or to pay any expenses incurred by the alleged violator in preparation for or resulting from the hearing. (E) The alleged violator may confront and cross-examine any adverse witness unless the board finds good cause for not allowing a confrontation or cross-examination. (F) The alleged probation, parole, or conditional release violator may have a representative of his/her choice at the revocation hearing. The representative may be a family member, a friend, an employer, or legal counsel. (G) A statement by the court or the board as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking shall be supplied to the probationer, parolee, or conditional releasee. (2) After the revocation hearing of an alleged probation, parole, or conditional release violator, the board will reach a decision within a reasonable amount of time. The inmate will receive a written notice of the board’s action as soon as the notice can be prepared and delivered. Following is a possible list of decisions the board may make, but does not exhaust the decisions open to the board: (A) The board may request additional information by means of various types of reports from the supervising parole officer, consulting psychologist or psychiatrist, or any other party or agency that might be able to supply additional information regarding the violation; (B) The board may schedule the alleged violator for another personal hearing before the board to look more deeply into the violation; (C) The board may revoke and reschedule the violator for a hearing or release. 1. If the remaining time on the sentence from the date of revocation is less than twelve (12) months, it is very likely the board will give a complete denial of further parole consideration. 2. If the remainder of the sentence to serve after revocation is more than twelve (12) months, the board may schedule a hearing. The hearing will be held within one (1) year for technical violators and absconders. A violator with a new sentence to the Missouri Department of Corrections will be held in accordance with board policy; and (D) The board may not revoke, but consider the alleged violator for reinstatement on parole or conditional release. The release will occur as soon as a satisfactory plan is approved by the board. (3) Following are the rules regarding time accredited to a parole or conditional release violator’s sentence: (A) For those offenders who were arrested for a crime while on parole or conditional release and received a conviction and sentence to be served outside the Department of Corrections, the board shall determine what part, if any, of the time from the date of arrest until completion of the sentence imposed, is counted as time served under the sentence from which they were paroled or conditionally released; (B) For those offenders who violate parole or conditional release by absconding, the board shall determine what part, if any, from the date of the board’s official Order of Arrest and Return issuance to his/her return to the Department of Corrections is counted as time served under the original sentence; (C) Those offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections under section 195.221, RSMo, for selling, giving, or delivering a controlled substance and were paroled prior to August 13, 1984, are compelled to serve the full amount of their sentences if paroled, plus an additional five (5) years. If they violate this parole, they must serve any time remaining on their sentences from the date of the release on parole; (D) In case of consecutive sentence, time is accredited as any other case. If one (1) parole is revoked and there are remaining consecutive paroles issued, all are automatically revoked; (E) Time served on conditional release does count as time served on an inmate’s sentence; and (F) If the board revoked the parole or conditional release, the paroled person shall serve the remainder of his/her prison term and all the conditional release term, as an additional prison term, and the conditionally released person shall serve the remainder of the conditional release term as an additional prison term, unless s/he is sooner released on parole. (4) If an inmate is revoked as a parole violator or a conditional release violator, s/he is not eligible for conditional release, but can be considered for parole at a later time. AUTHORITY: sections 217.040, 217.720, 217.722, and 558.031, RSMo 2000, and section 217.690, RSMo Supp. 2011.* This rule was previously filed as 13 CSR 80-4.030. Original rule filed Feb. 5, 1968, effective Feb. 15, 1968. Amended: Filed July 1, 1970, effective July 11, 1970. Amended: Filed March 15, 1974, effective March 25, 1974. Emergency amendment filed Aug. 6, 1979, effective Aug. 16, 1979, expired Nov. 11, 1979. Amended: Filed Aug. 6, 1979, effective Dec. 13, 1979. Emergency amendment filed April 3, 1984, effective April 13, 1984, expired Aug. 10, 1984. Amended: Filed April 3, 1984, effective Aug. 11, 1984. Amended: Filed July 15, 1988, effective Nov. 1, 1988. Emergency amendment filed Dec. 18, 1991, effective Feb. 1, 1992, expired May 30, 1992. Amended: Filed Dec. 18, 1991, effective June 25, 1992. Amended: Filed Dec. 22, 2011, effective June 30, 2012. *Original authority: 217.040, RSMo 1982, amended 1989, 1993, 1995; 217.720, RSMo 1982, amended 1989, 1990, 1994; 217.722, RSMo 1989, amended 1990, 1995; and 558.031, RSMo 1977, amended 1990, 1995. Douglas v. Buder, 412 U.S. 430, 93 S.Ct. 2199, 37 L.Ed.2d 52 (1973). Issuance of a traffic citation is not an “arrest” under either Missouri or Arkansas law for which failure to report cannot be grounds for revocation or probation without violating due process.